Your thoughts on Abstinence?

[QUOTE="Erasorn"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

Yes, sex should stay a marriage thing. We have enough STDs, thank you.

BTW, I'm 17, single, and I'm FOR abstinence, I have never had sex, nor will I until I marry.

I know how shocked you guys must be.

Silver_Dragon17

I never said they did. However, sleeping around instead of waiting to marry will greatly reduce them, will it not?

What's worse: risking death by spending time in your kitchen, or risking fatherhood by sleeping with a stranger? Now, which of those two has better odds of happening?

When I'd get to that woman(woah, that could take me long time and would probably be even riskier, evil boyfriends and the like) I'd use the nifty rubber thing called a condom. People says it's unsafe or whatever and yet I've never experienced anyone getting an unwanted pregnancy or STDs using one.. strange, eh? If used correctly(and it don't break) I don't see how it would be even possible.

I'd be more afraid of getting run over by some crazy road rage filled motorist then getting an STD to be honest(which I'm subject to most everyday walking to/from school).

[QUOTE="Arsenal140"]

[QUOTE="carpon"]First of all I'm not gonna get into the whole sex before marriage debate, as I think it is quite pointless. As for me being abstinent...well sex is not a high priority for me. I could really care less if my girlfriend wants to give that to me or whatever, it is there choice. That being said, if an opportunity is there where a girl is comfortable with that in a relationship, than yes, I would have sex.carpon

anyone think this sounds a bit funny

Well...ok you got me. :cry:Sometimes things just make less sense when you type them I guess, but they make sense in your head.

LOL happens all the time my friend

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

Marriage makes sex okay because it is the love between the two people. That's really all it is about. Sex should be saved for two people truly in love with each other, and who want to spend the rest of their lives with eachother. Not between two strangers or a BF and GF who don't even know if they'll still be together in two weeks.

Silver_Dragon17

Niether do I.

Sex should be reserved for true love.

Then, it should also be reserved for those who will stay together for their whole lives. AKA, marriage.

I am aware of divorces and such. That's why Christians are typically against divorce.

That's all semantics and backpeddling. You still havn't answered why marriage is special. And for every reason you've thrown up, exceptions have been shown to the effect of either marriage not being necessarily what you are saying it is or to the effect that the proposed advantages of marriage can be achieved without it.

Your example is far too easy to shoot down, a couple can stay together for life an still not be married, why would the state of marriage make this love any truer or more permanent?

More worryingly you claim so and still acknowledge divorces, this undermines your argument altogether and yet you pretend like it makes no difference! You're solution to it is just bizzare as well, it suggests staying together in marriage where there is no true love as a solution (but I thought you said that marriages were true love? Now you're telling me they might not be?!)

*Shakes head* *twirls finger* I don't get you.

[QUOTE="Articuno76"]

*OBNOXIOUS BUZZER NOISE* WRONG! You don't have to be in love to get married and you can be in love when you are not married. Furthermore, people can get married very quickly after meeting one another whereas an unmarried couple can choose to wait for a longer length than even those who decide to get married would wait. As I stated earlier, the cutoff point of marriage is essentially arbitrary unless you still believe in fathers selling away their daughters.

Silver_Dragon17

What you fail to see is that there are two parts to what I'm saying.

First, you must love the other person. This can be done outside of marriage.

Then, you must be willing and able to be with that person your whole life. MARRIAGE.

Marriage doesn't necessitate that though, nothing about marriage does. And it (lifetime relationship) can be achieved without marriage as well, I see no logical reason why it wouldn't be possible.

You're right about the part where I fail to see your point though, I DON'T see it.

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

Marriage makes sex okay because it is the love between the two people. That's really all it is about. Sex should be saved for two people truly in love with each other, and who want to spend the rest of their lives with eachother. Not between two strangers or a BF and GF who don't even know if they'll still be together in two weeks.

Articuno76

Niether do I.

Sex should be reserved for true love.

Then, it should also be reserved for those who will stay together for their whole lives. AKA, marriage.

I am aware of divorces and such. That's why Christians are typically against divorce.

That's all semantics and backpeddling. You still havn't answered why marriage is special. And for every reason you've thrown up, exceptions have been shown to the effect of either marriage not being necessarily what you are saying it is or to the effect that the proposed advantages of marriage can be achieved without it.

Your example is far too easy to shoot down, a couple can stay together for life an still not be married, why would the state of marriage make this love any truer or more permanent?

More worryingly you claim so and still acknowledge divorces, this undermines your argument altogether and yet you pretend like it makes no difference! You're solution to it is just bizzare as well, it suggests staying together in marriage where there is no true love as a solution (but I thought you said that marriages were true love? Now you're telling me they might not be?!)

*Shakes head* *twirls finger* I don't get you.

Here's the deal:

Sex should be reserved for those who are truly in love, and stay together for the rest of their lives.

If they get a divorce, then it is sad, but that does not undermine my argument.

If two people are in a loveless marriage, then why in hell are they married? If they are not in love, they shouldn't have sex. Plain and simple.

If two people are in love and stay with eachother their whole lives, then that is the definition of marriage.

Marriage is special because it is the uniting of two people who love each other for the rest of their lives!

I am done with this thread.

At Silver_Dragon17:

You're skewing words again. So I am going to have to take this piece by piece because there are so many oveassumptions and faults that I am having trouble knowing where to start. *deep breath* here goes.

If two people are in love and stay with eachother their whole lives, then that is the definition of marriage.Silver_Dragon17

Actually, legally and religiously speaking that isn't the definition of marriage. Sorry buddy. I've rearranged this point first because I think this is the biggest problem with your arguments, you're arguing about marriage this and marriage that and yet you have no idea what it even is. Marriage has very concrete definition it's not something open to interpretation like love.

Sex should be reserved for those who are truly in love, and stay together for the rest of their lives.Silver_Dragon17

And you can't be truly in love outside of marriage and together for the rest of your lifetime outside of marriage because...?

If they get a divorce, then it is sad, but that does not undermine my argument.Silver_Dragon17

Yes it does. You are saying that lifetime commitment is part of what makes marriage what it is. If that is the case then the existence of divorces proves you wrong and shows that marriage does not necessarily last a lifetime.

If two people are in a loveless marriage, then why in hell are they married?Silver_Dragon17

Because they loved each other at one point, but they are staying in a loveless marriage in order to support your idea that marriage lasts forever. Since it IS possible to fall out of love within a marriage (but you hold that it is a necessary trait of marriage that it is enduring) then they would have to stay together lovelessly correct?

If they are not in love, they shouldn't have sex. Plain and simple.Silver_Dragon17

I agree with you here but that is a different thread for a different day, the issue at hand is about marriage not love. Logically speaking you do not need love to get married. And you can be in love without being married.

Marriage is special because it is the uniting of two people who love each other for the rest of their lives! I am done with this thread.Silver_Dragon17

I've already proven you wrong here. Marriage does not always last for a lifetime which is why it ISN'T guaranteed to be lifelong at all. Furthermore you can achieve lifelong comittment without marriage. If you are saying that marriage is by nature something where they couple are together for their lifetime (in concrete definition you are wrong, but I'll play along here), then you wouldn't be able to evaluate whether or not you are married until you are dead!!

Well, some people don't fall in love until their 30s or even beyond, then, when I think about that, I'd probably kill myself if I went that long without sex, I mean, that's just a little difficult.Wemhim256

Well that can go in line with all the things that can drive you insane, ex. seclusion on an island, hunger, etc. But the thoughts on abstinence differ from fact, that it will prevent sexually transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancies, and impurities within the house of the Lord :P

Humans are animals, we're meant to have sex and we should if we please.

Personally, anyone waiting for marriage is fooling themselves. You might as well just do it and get good before you dissapoint your future spouse when you're a dead fish in bed.

Seriously, Abstinence supporters just need to get laid, then maybe they'd stop being so fickle.

It's your choice. I couldn't care less whether or not you have sex with your significant other, so long as you don't go into long, drawn out detail about it.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

Again with the generalizations.

Christians can and do accept everyone, no matter the religion. We are not intolerant of all non-Christians. Most Christians accept that people think differently.

Silver_Dragon17

*sigh*

At what point in any of our conversations did I ever say anything comparable to what you have just said?

Yes, I do believe that any non-Christian is in immortal danger. HOWEVER I do not go around forcing my religion on others. Did you know that my own little brother thinks God is not real? That kills me, but I leave an individual's choices up to them when it comes to religion.

Niether do I.

Sex should be reserved for true love.

Then, it should also be reserved for those who will stay together for their whole lives. AKA, marriage.

I am aware of divorces and such. That's why Christians are typically against divorce.

Silver_Dragon17

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

Again with the generalizations.

Christians can and do accept everyone, no matter the religion. We are not intolerant of all non-Christians. Most Christians accept that people think differently.

quiglythegreat

*sigh*

At what point in any of our conversations did I ever say anything comparable to what you have just said?

Yes, I do believe that any non-Christian is in immortal danger. HOWEVER I do not go around forcing my religion on others. Did you know that my own little brother thinks God is not real? That kills me, but I leave an individual's choices up to them when it comes to religion.

Yes you can.

I don't want non-Christians to go to Hell, but if they don't want to be a Christian, then I accept that. Some people aren't like that, but not all. So, yes, I can accept something even if I want to change it.

So long as you're smart about having sex, there's no problem.

Most people are not smart about it however.

[QUOTE="blooddemon666"]

I'm on the fence about it.

I agree that sex is being thrown around too much now. But I could see if you were intimate with a girlfriend/boyfriend of a few years.

aaaaarrrrggggg

I agree completely:D

Yes you can.

I don't want non-Christians to go to Hell, but if they don't want to be a Christian, then I accept that. Some people aren't like that, but not all. So, yes, I can accept something even if I want to change it.

Silver_Dragon17

[QUOTE="Silver_Dragon17"]

Yes you can.

I don't want non-Christians to go to Hell, but if they don't want to be a Christian, then I accept that. Some people aren't like that, but not all. So, yes, I can accept something even if I want to change it.

quiglythegreat

Again, no it is not.

Intolerance is not letting somebody be what they are.

I'm letting my little brother be atheist, even though I want nothing more than to force my religion down his throat until he considers it ice cream.

Seems very boring

[QUOTE="Erasorn"][QUOTE="flavort"]It is the only fail safe tool against STD's, andunwanted pregnancy. I would reduce lots of problems.flavort

Think about it. Abstinence is no sex right? If you marry you dont automatically give your STD to your spouse. It is when you dont practice abstinence the risk goes up.

Good point.

When it comes to practicing it, it's the best method. However, expecting people to go through with it is somewhat unreliable.

I have still not made a decision if I want to save my virginity for marriage or not, but I don't need to worry about that right now. I have two more years of childhood left, and there's no reason to make it any shorter.

i think its unhealthy. Sex is to be had, whenever you and a partner is ready.KrayzieJ

This is one thing worth bringing up, but waiting until marriage to have sex is fine if that's what you want (or if that is when you consider yourself ready), as a preference is as good as anything else. However as a rationalisation it doesn't make any sense.

The best thing the abstinence supporters have going for them is because that's the way they want to do it, and that's cool, but without reasoning they have no reason for anyone to be expected to follow them.

It's best if you want a healthy relationship with someone in the future. The past can come back and haunt you, and sleeping around can cause a lot of bitterness, and resentment. It also prevents you from having to worry about STDs or HIV.MedicMike66

It's a fallacy to think their is no middle ground between sleeping around and waiting for marriage.

So long as you're smart about having sex, there's no problem.

Most people are not smart about it however.

yoshi-lnex

Looking at divorce rates I'd say a lot of people aren't very smart at marriage either...

[QUOTE="MedicMike66"]It's best if you want a healthy relationship with someone in the future. The past can come back and haunt you, and sleeping around can cause a lot of bitterness, and resentment. It also prevents you from having to worry about STDs or HIV.Articuno76

It's a fallacy to think their is no middle ground between sleeping around and waiting for marriage.

Seriously though, right on.

[QUOTE="Articuno76"]

[QUOTE="MedicMike66"]It's best if you want a healthy relationship with someone in the future. The past can come back and haunt you, and sleeping around can cause a lot of bitterness, and resentment. It also prevents you from having to worry about STDs or HIV.quiglythegreat

It's a fallacy to think their is no middle ground between sleeping around and waiting for marriage.

Seriously though, right on.

That joke was so bad and yet I can't help but grin :)

Casual sex is disgusting. A girl loses her attractiveness to me after more than two partners.WildLIkeChild

I believe someone on these boards said it once 'In actuality, what you don't know can't hurt you.' so would your attraction detector spot through a lie?

[QUOTE="MedicMike66"]It's best if you want a healthy relationship with someone in the future. The past can come back and haunt you, and sleeping around can cause a lot of bitterness, and resentment. It also prevents you from having to worry about STDs or HIV.Articuno76

It's a fallacy to think their is no middle ground between sleeping around and waiting for marriage.

Sleeping with someone you're involved with in a relationship, and going to a club nightly to pick up girls/guys is different.If you've stayed abstinent or have been responsible in your sexuality, and have a partner that has been with multiple partners or have heard people talk about their geting aruond, it's bound to cause mutiny in relationships... and the arguments never turn out well. I'm not a christian and I don't really care what anyone does, but absinence can save a lot of grief until you find someone you really care about.

Impossible for me to do. My friend is brought up into a strict religion that requires him to do so. He can't even kiss, hang out with, purposely touch girls from outside his family. Of course he rebels against it, but they don't know that.

I think Abstinence is a pretty logic thing to do, but I don't relate it to religion.

(might have spelled it wrong)

but what do you believe. Do you think sex should be kept in marriage?

Santafarmer

It doesn't matter what we believe, the fact is sex happens and it will never stop.. To give such a rediculous solution to problems such as AIDS spreading and uexpected pregnancies is a fantasy at best. Its like trying to stop people from cussing, but far harder sense there is a massive hormonal drive for it.

Impossible for me to do. My friend is brought up into a strict religion that requires him to do so. He can't even kiss, hang out with, purposely touch girls from outside his family. Of course he rebels against it, but they don't know that.

I think Abstinence is a pretty logic thing to do, but I don't relate it to religion.

NatsuGaijin

I honestly would disown my parents (if thats even possible hehe) if they ran by that religion..